At the moment I'm trying to figure out which university I'd rather go to (although I will be applying to both). I'm just concerned that the fees for CASS is 16,000 for the year whereas Kent is around 5000 - obviously a big difference. I am just wondering: does this necessarily reflect the quality of teaching, or more just the location of the universities (with London generally being much more expensive). I know that a lot of people on here have warned me against doing a Master's program because apparently employers don't like to see too many exemptions. However, I'm almost finishing an undergraduate in Music and, so far, this hasn't helped in getting me an internship - so how can doing a postgrad in actuarial science harm my chances right? If you're wondering why only these two universities - they're the only two that enable someone without a numerical degree (although, with high mathematical competency) to get into the Master's program.
I wouldn't worry overmuch about the exemptions thing. Given your background, you have an excellent reason to be going down this route, and that will satisfy most employers. As long as the program carries exemptions, I wouldn't worry about the quality - it would have to be pretty special to persuade me to cough up an extra 11k plus the costs of being accessible to central London. My only other advice would be to work your way through a textbook like Casella & Berger before starting - a master's program is fast and requires you to be able to pick up material at a high level independently. There's a reason they normally require a first degree!
That is true, although I stand a better chance of getting into the Kent PGdip course seeing as my degree isn't numerical. After the one-year PGdip course I could always transfer onto the Msc course at Kent - though I'd hope to get a job instead before then, god willing.
